Are we going to have to compromise?

[jbm]

Like it or not,we have two very different belief systems coexisting on the same planet. I believe that the conservative belief system is based on false assumptions,but it doesn't change the fact that their base is as firmly committed to their thought processes as we are to ours. I find the Bush gang totally offensive because they are committed to promoting their world view with no regard for the fact that not all americans accept that world view as the correct one.

If we actually did manage to get a real liberal in office,I would love it short term...but long term we'd be doing the same thing in reverse and the two factions would stay diametrically opposed.


I'm wondering if the answer to long term liberal leadership lies in our ability to advocate those issues which we cannot compromise,without totally disregarding the values of the conservative groups. I know a lot of people will object to this,but I don't think we can acheive our goals if politics becomes a constant revolving door between two diametrically opposed factions. If we could change the world without it being shell shock..slowly,with a real long term agenda...would that work?

[Stanchetalarooni]

1. Do you think that our bi-cameral brain has something to do with it?

Physiology preceeds psychology.

Sort of like you can't run the computer software without the correct hardware.

Perhaps one half of the human race is hardwired to be in eternal opposition with the other half.

[jbm]

2. hmmm...I never thought of it from that perspective...

I do believe that conservatism and liberalism evolve logically based on certain assumptions made early on in regards to their impressions of human nature and what constitues virtue,but I've never considered that it may have biological roots. Interesting!

[Ksec]

3. No matter how hard you try

Oil and water dont mix.

[Silverhair]

4. Of course there is hope.

True compromise is taking the best of both sides and from that bringing forth a new way. It will happen, it just takes a long time, and an openness to new ideas. The best thinking and openness that I have found comes from those closer to the center. The ones on either extreme are only interested in defeating the other side and gaining power for themselves.

[jame]

5. Lemme give you a good old "Amen" for that....

And the extremes on both sides are what polarize all of us. The problem comes when we meet in the eventual center, and my "slightly right" is too much for your "slightly left" and vice versa.

Polarization ain't such a bad thing. It motivates us to debate and both sides (grudgingly) end up at center, which is where most af us like to think we are anyway.

(Editted to add.....Good post, BTW!)

[Silverhair]

8. Thank you

It give me encouragement to find others of like mind here.

[quaker bill]

6. It is not the center and not a compromise

A false dichotomy has been created. The simplest way to detect such false dichotomies is when you observe that things are painted in such stark relief that only black and white are seen to exist. The dichotomy is the result of 30+ years of "wedge issue" politics

Discussions of compromise never work in such scenarios because compromise is not the solution. A place needs to be found where each can achieve that which is core to their belief system. By this I mean adress the motivation.

Conservative and liberal values share much in common when you center on the human experience. In saying this, I am explicitly not referring to the leaders of the conservative movement, who I see as those that have most aggressively exploited wedge issues to create this dichotomy. In seemingly reasonable reaction to this some liberal leaders have added fuel to the fire by standing for what appears as a dilution of morals to secular relativism.

Liberals seek a moral world as do conservatives. The notion held by many conservatives that liberals have no morals is as absurd as the turn of this coin.

Liberals find murder to be abhorent as do conservatives, we just often include those murders sanctioned by the State in this mix.

Many Liberals and progressives find the exploitation of human sexuality for capitalist advantage dehumanizing and strongly objectionable. Conservatives concur but would choose censorship over work toward a higher human conciousness in this regard.

Liberals believe in the value of work as conservatives do, we just object to exploitation. Conservatives are not fans of being exploited but feel that the free market is the solution. Liberals know that it is not, but still seek the same goal.

Liberals value human life and would not go to war for oil. Conservatives value human life and whould choose to ban abortion. A true focus on the value of human life such that a meaningful social committment to the value of human life for the born and living might ease the demand for both.

Both seek a better world where they can live honorably and raise their kids at peace. Each have been taught a radically different prescription to arrive at this place. Each has been taught to see any negotiation or compromise as a threat.

The Greens at one time had this concept: "niether left nor right but forward".

It takes careful and patient listening to find that which is valuable in the opinion of those opposed to your view point. Yet this is the only way that the false dichotomy can be defeated.

[Silverhair]

7. Yes.

It is important to really listen to what the other side is saying and not to knee jerk react, but to really listen. You will find that most of us aren't that far apart, except for the extremist among us, and those who would use wedge issues.

It is possible to built solid agreements by taking the best aspects of each sides ideas, and combining them. I think it was Hegel, (I'm not going to take the time to look it up.) who proposed the concept of Thesis vs. Antithesis = Synthesis.

[quaker bill]

12. It is also a quaker perspective

Our business is done by consensus. This is not necessarily unanimity but seeks to avoid disgruntled minorities. The hope is that a "sense of the community" develops that combines the wisdom or "light", in quaker parlance, that each has to shed on an issue.

When working at it's best, the decision reached is better than any one person could have come up with on his/her own. It is by nature an inclusive concept.

I have had the joy of bringing this concept forward to groups seeking to resolve internal conflicts. With patience and a bit of willingness on each participant to recognize that the others may have something to say that is worth listening to, it can work quite well.

[lostnfound]

17. Transmute into something that we can absorb

That's where I was trying to head with my freedom on the left vs right thread. The right does HAVE a vision that is worthy, it's just incomplete and warped; as is ours (I happen to like ours 1000 times more..and it's very difficult sometimes to see where they are coming from..but I have a little faith on this).

For example, there is an axis of 'responsibility' to be measured. The right believes in a certain brand of personal responsibility; the right believes in another brand.

'Freedom' is another.

[quaker bill]

18. I will give it another try

The polarization of current politics is an artifice constructed on fear of the "other". Most of the hardened positions of the right and some of the left are based in this fear.

We have been taught to fear each other. The Reagan revolution begn this in earnest.

The Republicans have long thrived off of having an "evil empire" to oppose. For quite some time the commies sufficed. Then they just collapsed. In the absence of the cold war, a new "war" had to be invented. Thus the culture war was started. Reagan, Gingrich, et al began the politics of "wedge issues" to define themselves.

We, the liberals, were under actual attack and responded accordingly. The problem with this is that it plays into the right wing assault.

The commandment rock for instance is a recent example. My opinion is that the thing did not belong there, and beyond that was aesthetically unattractive. Why did they place it there? It was bait plain and simple. When we try to remove the commandment rock, it becomes much easier to portray us as godless commies. When the courts side with us, it is easier to portray them as part of the godless commie agenda. This is classic wedge issue politics, southern style.

Bottom line is that we are not all that different in our basic desires. Most conservatives would not have thought of putting the rock there in the first place. Their leadership does this as out and out manipulation to create fear of liberals. We are complicit in our own demise when we play their game.

Yes, their take on us in particular, is warped. Professionals have been working to build this warped perception for 20 ro 30 years and have been quite successful. We, through seemingly reasonable reaction to their attacks have been complicit in the creation of a false dichotomy.

To become a true majority party with an effective hold on governance will require us to find a solution to this problem. I am not saying it will be easy, and I do not argue for compromise. But to the extent we hold the same values, we need to make it known. I also believe that our holding the same basic values is much more the case than you will ever get listening to the pundits.

Politics of the last 30 years has been all about highlighting differences. We are not as different as we are led, with intent, to believe. Once you get past the political rhetoric, this may become clear.

[lostnfound]

23. Oops! A misunderstanding -- what I was trying to say was ..

that we -- the Democrats, the liberals, the progressives -- should identify the strengths or values which ordinary people project onto the Republican party, and transmute/transform/re-configure them into something which is absorbable by our side.

Any candidate that hopes to win a mandate needs to integrate values that strike a chord with ordinary people across the political spectrum.

In other words, I agree that reacting towards them as the 'other' is nonproductive and I agree that it is a false dichotomy.

The core values underlying the Right are mostly worth keeping, but we need to distill or transform them before they can or should be incorporated into our own thinking. (Incorporating right-wing thinking without distilling it down to its core values is a mistake, and it's why most of our Democrats sound like Republicans. But doing the necessary work leads to speech that resounds at a higher level, and perhaps to actions that are --to quote Goldilocks -- "just right".)

[Dirk39]

9. Look at other countries or history...

GB faced a decades lasting backlash of conservativism, then a compromising Blair came and it's worse now than ever before. The same happened in Germany. Now it's really getting dangerous. People are desperate (no other government was as low in polls since we started to measure them in 1977). But all the parties, from the Greens to the "social" "democrats" to the liberals (european liberals) to the conservative party: it's all the same.
The labour party was financed by Unions 95% about 20 years ago, now it's financed by corporations. The SPD in germany has lost about 100.000 members during the last years. And nothing is more dangerous - I'm german and I know what I'm talking about - than a middle class, who's afraid to lose its' position. This is what set the Nazis to power and I'm afraid the same will happen again.
When Clinton was winning in the USA, I was full of hope. I thought decades of right-wing conservative backlash would have come to an end. It would turn into the other direction again. When Clinton somehow surrendered after a few month, starting to attack people on welfare and unemployed people, I decided to never ever vote again here in germany if I'm not 100% sure, that the people I voted for wouldn't compromise. And I'm quite happy now that I didn't vote for corporation-whore Schröder. If you rob the people of any chance to an alternative within a democratic spectrum, if everything is just the same corrupt BS, they will look elsewhere, and they will not look to the left, they will look for the next Hitler or Berlusconi or Buchanan or Haider.
The democrats - not just the party in the USA but the people who fight for democracy have to regain their position. They have to start their own discourse again, instead of just weakly replying to the righwingers and neoliberal issues. They have to make clear that they want another world, that they want to give the people this world back, their governments back, their countries back, this corporate high-jacked planet. This is more important than wining an election.
The democrats should learn to talk to other people, to everyone, to take people serious. Esp. the left should learn to be less arrogant, but without compromising.
Greetings from Germany,
Dirk

[lynndew2]

10. I get flamed every time but here I go again.

The repukes are stealing our core issues right out from under US and it might piss off their base but it wont make them change their vote.

They basically let Ted Kennedy write the education bill. They sent campain reform to the congress. They are trying to push a prescription plan and now they can say the Dems are holding it up. They are appointing minority justices and forcing the Dem party to fillabuster them.

You have to be ready when the campains really start to explain these things to the normal people. Rove is very smart and he has set this up well.

When we go to our base arguements, they can say "Hey, look we tried but were blocked!!!"

Better start thinking of ways to answer why we are blocking the things we have always stood for. I can promise you that they will bring all of this up and they have the $$$ to make it well known and from their perspective.

[jame]

11. So what is it then?

"They basically let Ted Kennedy write the education bill. They sent campain reform to the congress. They are trying to push a prescription plan and now they can say the Dems are holding it up. They are appointing minority justices and forcing the Dem party to fillabuster them."

What is it about comprimise that you don't like? It DOES go both ways, doesn't it?

[lynndew2]

13. Nothing, but it will be percieved that the DEMS

are the ones stopping the things they always asked for. Dems always pushed these things. Now shrub is saying ok and the dems are stopping it. I am talking from a normal person who isnt involved in the details. All they know is the dems have always wanted these things and now they are obstructing. just a warning of whats to come.

[jame]

14. So I guess we have to decide.

Is it about Repubs or Dems winning, or is it about "We, the People.." winning?

[lynndew2]

15. No It will be We, the people but We might not be the people

The way Rove is doing this might turn We,The People, into Shrub 2004. I am not saying things cant change but, he has stolen many of our core issues and turned them in our face. Lots could happen before 2004 but it is a fact that he has made Dems look two-faced on many things. Dont Kill the Messenger

[aquart]

16. Our gov't was set up to force compromise.

Our system fails without it. Witness the Republicans.

Compromise is political and human reality.

Leaders who won't compromise lead only to death.

[Clark Can WIN]

19. Yes,

or no

[peabody71]

20. If you're refering to Dean, he'll be a decent mediator.

The best leader always are. Dean has evolved into a more liberal politician but he has proven his mediating skills as Gov of Vermont.

[quaker bill]

21. Kick

[Q]

22. Compromise IS possible in a Democracy...

...but Democracy is dead. Or haven't you noticed?